Jennison OMB Decision

JENNISON V.
ASHFIELD-COLBORNE-WAWANOSH
195
Jennison Construction Ltd. has appealed to the Ontario

Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Councils
refusal to enact a proposed amendment to the Official
Plan for the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh to
redesignate land at 80897 Sharpes Road Creek Line from
Agricultural and Natural Environment to Extractive
Resources to permit the extraction of aggregates.
OMB Case No.: PL101197
OMB File No.: PL101197
Jennison Construction Ltd. has appealed to the Ontario
Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Councils
refusal to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law
32-2008 of the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh
to rezone lands respecting 80897 Sharpes Road Creek
Line from Agricultural and Natural Environment to
Extractive Resources to permit the extraction of aggregates.
OMB File No.: PL101198
In the Matter of subsection 11(5) of the Aggregate
Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8, as amended
Referred by: Ministry of Natural Resources
Objector: Maitland Valley Conservation Authority
Objector: Ministry of Natural Resources
Applicant: Jennison Construction Ltd.
Subject: Application for a Class A licence for the removal
of Aggregate
196
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS
71 O.M.B.R.
Property Address/Description: Part Lot 16 & 17,

Maitland Concession
Municipality: Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh
OMB File No.: MM110024
[Indexed as: Jennison Construction Ltd. v. Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh
(Township)]
Docket: PL101197
Ontario Municipal Board
J.P. Atcheson Member
Decision: December 16, 2011
Evidence General Onus Evidence to be viewed through the lens of
relevant statutory and planning policy tests in place Board to determine if
proponent has fulfilled its obligations in complying with statutory and policy
tests set out in Provincial policy, legislation, and regulations, as well as in
governing local planning documents Provincial Policy Statement 2005 to be
considered premier planning document.
Government Policy General Natural Heritage Reference Manual
Proper interpretation of negative impacts should take into consideration
directions found in Manual Mitigation may include replacement of
woodland components and wildlife habitat resulting from interim loss of
portion of significant woodland Context of larger significant woodland area
affected must be considered.
Government Policy Provincial Policy Statement Gravel pit Need
Two existing gravel pits in immediate area PPS policy prescribing that
need not to be determining factor in approval of pit licence Provincial
Policy Statement, 2005, s. 2.5.2.1.
Government Policy Provincial Policy Statement Public Interest
Provincial Policy Statement requiring balancing of competing public interest
objectives Balancing of public and private interests fundamental requirement of the Planning Act Determination of balance originally vesting with
municipal council and other approval authorities and upon appeal, with
Board Determination not residing with private individuals, corporations or
local interest groups Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.
Official Plan (Industrial) Gravel pit Consistency with Provincial
Policy Statement, protection of groundwater supply, noise impacts, removal of
woodland, appropriate studies, mitigation measures, public interest, all
JENNISON V. ASHFIELD-COLBORNE-WAWANOSH
197
addressed Determination of public interest based on sound planning

principles and approved planning policies at both provincial and local levels
Balancing of public and private interests fundamental requirement of the
Planning Act Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.
Pits and Quarries General Asphalt recycling Groundwater regime
well understood Board satisfied that deep bedrock aquifer not impacted
No compelling testimony that storage of recycled asphalt on pit floor had been
properly addressed Asphalt recycling not permitted.
Pits and Quarries General Gravel pit Considerations
Consistency with Provincial Policy Statement, protection of groundwater
supply, noise impacts, removal of woodland, appropriate studies, mitigation
measures, public interest, all addressed Determination of public interest
based on sound planning principles and approved planning policies at both
provincial and local levels.
Pits and Quarries General Gravel pit Need Two existing gravel
pits in immediate area Provincial Policy Statement policy prescribing that
need not to be determining factor in approval of pit licence Provincial
Policy Statement, 2005, s. 2.5.2.1.
Words and Phrases Public Interest Provincial Policy Statement
requiring balancing of competing public interest objectives Balancing of
public and private interests fundamental requirement of Planning Act
Determination of balance originally vesting with municipal council and other
approval authorities and upon appeal, with Board Determination not
residing with private individuals, corporations or local interest groups
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.
Zoning (Industrial) Gravel pit Consistency with Provincial Policy
Statement, protection of groundwater supply, noise impacts, removal of
woodland, appropriate studies, mitigation measures, public interest, all
addressed Determination of public interest based on sound planning
principles and approved planning policies at both provincial and local levels
Balancing of public and private interests fundamental requirement of the
Planning Act Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.
The applicant sought a gravel pit licence for extraction above the water table of
an area of 22.2 ha located within a 27 ha property. The applications for official plan
amendment, rezoning by-law, and licence were refused and appealed to the Board.
Issues raised included inconsistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005,
incompatibility with the objectives of the Official Plans, impact on the water
supply, removal of woodland, negative noise impact, lack of need, incomplete
studies, potential for spills from gasoline, lubricants and asphalt, and conflict with
the public interest. A 19.3 ha forest patch was to be removed as part of the gravel
operation but the applicant proposed a sequential tree removal and rehabilitation
plan to restore the forest loss.
Held, applications approved.
198
71 O.M.B.R.
The essential matter was whether the proponent had fulfilled its obligations in
complying with provincial policy, legislation and regulations, as well as with local
planning documents.
The proposal posed no traffic safety issues. The pit could be operated within
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) noise guidelines. The groundwater regime
was well understood for the site and the deep bedrock aquifer would not be
impacted. Natural heritage impacts that might result from the gravel pit operation
had been appropriately assessed. There would be no negative impacts on wildlife.
The issue of need was not a determining factor. The proposed land use was compatible given the setbacks. The proposal was in the public interest.
A very narrow interpretation of the meaning of no negative impacts offered by
some witnesses was not adopted since the policy documents should be given a
broad interpretation. The mere changing of a land use designation did not constitute
a change in the specific use found on the lands upon which the habitat of the
endangered butternut trees currently existed. This land would still be a forested area
regardless of the land use designation in the Townships official plan. Moreover, on
a proper reading of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), mitigation may
include replacement of the woodland component and wildlife habitat, and such
actions were appropriate tools to alleviate negative impact resulting from the
interim loss of a portion of significant woodland. Mitigation may include replacement
of the woodland components and functions within a reasonable timeframe and such
replacement and enhancement were contemplated in the PPS and its Natural
Heritage Reference Manual.
It was critical that mitigation measures be closely monitored. The proponents
restoration plan required annual, three and five year evaluations of the success of
the reforestation. Demonstration of success was a precondition to moving to the
next phase of extraction. The MOE had the resources and the expertise to monitor
and evaluate the reports filed by the proponent. Sequential approval based upon
performance, as opposed to a blanket approval, was a prudent and sound planning
tool once the appropriateness of the land use change had been determined.
However, there was no compelling testimony that the storage of recycled asphalt
on the pit floor had been properly addressed. Bearing in mind the high intrinsic
susceptibility index for the groundwater directly below the pit floor, the Board
excluded asphalt from the recyclable materials that could be brought to the site.
Overall, there were no significant flaws in the proponents planning assessment,
and the review had been comprehensive, fair and compelling.
Cases referred to
Bele Himmell Investments Ltd. v. Mississauga (City) (1981), 13 O.M.B.R. 17, 1981
CarswellOnt 1507, [1982] O.J. No. 1200 (O.M.B.) considered
Bruce (County) Official Plan Amendment No. 45 (Re) (2006), 55 O.M.B.R. 227, 26
C.E.L.R. (3d) 75, [2006] O.M.B.D. No. 1328, 2006 CarswellOnt 8257 sub nom.
Ron Forbes Ent. Ltd. v. Bruce (County) (O.M.B.) considered
James Dick Construction Ltd. v. Caledon (Town) (2010), 66 O.M.B.R. 263
(O.M.B.) considered
199
Keswick Sutherland School Inc. v. Halton (Regional Municipality) (2009), 63

O.M.B.R. 227, 2009 CarswellOnt 4670 (O.M.B.) considered
Motisi v. Bernardi (1987), 20 O.M.B.R. 129, 1987 CarswellOnt 3719 (O.M.B.)
considered
Statutes referred to
Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8
Generally referred to
s. 2 referred to
s. 12 referred to
s. 12(1)(j) referred to
Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 6
s. 17(2)(c) referred to
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
s. 2 referred to
s. 2(d) referred to
s. 2.1 [en. 2006, c. 23, s. 4] referred to
s. 17(43) referred to
s. 34(24.3) [en. 2006, c. 23, s. 15(12)] referred to
Regulations referred to
Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 6
General (Amendment), Ont. Reg. 294/11
Authorities referred to
Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Provincial Policy Statement
(2005), O.C. 140/2005 (in force March 1, 2005), ss. 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.2, 2.5.2.1
Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Reference Manual for
Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, 2nd ed.
(April 22, 2010)
Ontario, Ministry of the Environment, Construction Equipment, Pub. NPC-115
(1978)
Ontario, Ministry of the Environment, Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in
Class 1 & 2 Areas, Pub. NPC-205 (1995)
Ontario, Ministry of the Environment, Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in
Class 3 Areas (Rural), Pub. NPC-232 (1995)
APPEAL under s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13,

for an official plan amendment; APPEAL under s. 34(11) of the Act
for a rezoning by-law; REFERRAL under s. 11(5) of the Aggregate
Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8, for a gravel pit licence.
Alan R. Patton, for Jennison Construction Ltd.
Stephen Watt, for Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanos,
Maitland Valley Conservation Authority.
200
71 O.M.B.R.
J.P. ATCHESON MEMBER:

[1] This was a hearing in the matter of appeals by Jennison
Construction Ltd. (Proponent) from the Council of the Township of
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanoshs refusal to approve its applications
for Official Plan Amendment (OPA #5) and a Zoning By-law
Amendment to Zoning By-law 32-2008 on part of its 27 hectare (66
acre) property located at 80897 Sharpes Road Creek Line to permit
the extraction of aggregates. The Appellant/Proponent proposes to
add a special policies in the OPA to provide for the gravel pit use,
the monitoring of spills and the revitalization of the pit when extraction
is completed to a woodland area as set out in the Aggregate
Resources Act (ARA), revised Site Plans and Site Plan Notes
(Exhibit 5). The Zoning By-law Amendment would sanction the
gravel pit operation as set out in the revised Site Plans and Site Plan
Notes (Exhibit 5) as subsequently amended by the Proponent during
the course of this hearing.
[2] Concurrent with these appeals the Minister of Natural
Resources has referred to the Board Jennisons ARA application for
a Category 3 Class A Pit Above the Water Table licence to extract
aggregate from a 22.2 hectare site located in Part of Lots 16 and 17,
Maitland Concession, in the Township of Ashfield-ColborneWawanosh. The annual tonnage condition applied for in the licence
application is for 300,000 tonnes.
[3] The appeals were consolidated with the consent of the parties.
[4] The Board was advised at the commencement of the hearing
that some new evidence would be forthcoming in the form of a
letter and testimony from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
indicating that they no longer have any concerns about the revised
ARA application.
[5] The Board, being cognizant of Section 2 and Subsections
17(43) and 34(24.3) of the Planning Act, inquired whether this new
information and the revisions to the ARA application were of a
nature that would have affected the decision of the Municipal
Council and as such should this material be referred back to the
Municipal Council for its consideration. Counsel for the parties on
consent confirmed that they were of the view that this material
would not have affected Councils decision and that the material did
not need to be referred back. The Board after reviewing the material
concurred.
201
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL

[6] The proposed site is within a rural area, on lands primarily
comprised of an agricultural field and woodlands. The site consists
of 27 hectares of land owned by the Proponent in Part of Lots 16 and
17, Maitland Concession, in the Township of Ashfield-ColborneWawanosh. Within that area an ARA licence has been requested to
cover 22.2 hectares with extraction proposed on 18.5 hectares as set
out at Exhibit 5 (The Revised Site Plans).
[7] The proposed licenced area is bounded on the south by an
Ontario Hydro transmission corridor, on the east by Sharpes Creek
Line, (Huron County Road 31) and on the north by existing licenced
gravel pit (Falleen Holdings, Huron Concrete). The western limit of
the subject property generally follows the top of bank of the
Maitland River Valley. The ARA licence Site Plans indicate that the
extraction area is to be setback some 30 metres from the top of bank
(Exhibit 5). Between the river and the subject property is a group of
some 40 to 50 cottages and trailers known locally as the Fernhurst
Glen Cottages. This development by all accounts occurred many
years ago and is generally below the escarpment brow within the
valleylands of the Maitland River in what is known as Forest Patch
38. This development is serviced by a private road and private
sewage and water systems. Some of the structures within the
Fernhurst Glen Cottages area are within the floodplain of Maitland
River and are governed by the regulations of the Maitland Valley
Conservation Authority. Some of these cottage and trailer facilities
obtain their domestic water from private collections systems that
utilize seeps and springs emanating from the escarpment (Exhibit 17),
and as shown in a series of photographs found at Exhibit 18.
[8] Immediately across County Road 31 from the subject lands
are farm fields, to the south east is a farm residence with associated
chicken barns. The John Neutel Construction Ltd. licenced gravel pit
is to the northeast opposite the Falleen Holdings gravel pit on the
east side of County Road 31.
[9] The Proponent owns lands to the immediate south of the
proposed licenced area which was formerly a County of Huron borrow
pit that has been randomly replanted with coniferous trees. The
Proponent also owns some small field areas, as shown on an aerial
photograph (Exhibit 4, Tab 4), in the same general area of the former
202
71 O.M.B.R.
borrow pit that it intends to reforest as part of the Rehabilitation and

Restoration Plans associated with and forming part of the conditions
of the ARA Licence.
[10] The southern portion of the proposed licence area consists of
an agricultural field some 2.0 hectares in size. The remainder of the
site is upland maple forest (FODM5-1) which forms part of the
larger contiguous forest identified as Forest Patch 38 by the
Maitland Valley Conservation Authority. Forest Patch 38 is some
65.3 hectares in size and due to its size and other natural heritage
features is considered significant. This determination is not in dispute.
[11] The portion of Forest Patch 38 located on the Jennison
property is approximately 19.3 hectares in size. The area of this
forest that would be removed if the gravel pit application was to go
forward in the manner proposed is about 14.9 hectares. The removal
of the forest area would be done in four phases with the second
phase being further subdivided into phases 2A and 2B, as set out at
Exhibit 22. Associated with this sequential tree removal is a
progressive Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan which has
been incorporated into the ARA Site Plans and Site Plan Notes at
Page 5 of 5, Exhibit 5, as further revised by Exhibit 52. Among other
things, these plans show a reforestation and planting plans to
progressively restore the forest loss to extraction plan.
[12] The agricultural field on the subject property is designated
Agricultural and the forest area is designated Natural
Environment by the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh
Official Plan.
[13] The County of Huron Official Plan is a high level policy
document which provides direction to the community and lower tier
municipalities. It provides no land use designations but instead
leaves those determinations to the local municipal Official Plans.
[14] Jennison intends to remove approximately 4.4 million tonnes
of gravel from the extraction area. The extraction depth is to remain
1.5 metres above the observed water table. The uncontradicted
evidence is that the site contains an exceptional deposit of gravel
which will allow for the production of high value aggregate products
such as Granular A, coarse asphalt aggregate and other blended
products such as Granular B, blending sand, and winter sand with
minimum screening.
203
[15] The proposal involves four phases of extraction. The first

phase is located primarily in the agricultural field at the south end of
the property adjacent to County Road. 31. The second phase is north
of phase 1. This second phase is further subdivided into two sub
phases (2A and 2B) with the subsequent phases moving northward,
as shown on Exhibit 5 (the revised site plans).
[16] Extraction is generally proposed to take place in a sequential
pattern gradually progressing from south to north. Within each phase
the direction of extraction would be from east to west followed by
progressive restoration and rehabilitation of each phase. The
proposed licence would sanction a limit of 300,000 tonnes annually
being removed, although it is expected that 250,000 tonnes will be
removed in a typical year. Using an annual extraction rate of 250,000
tonnes, the proposed gravel pit will operate for about twenty years.
[17] Mitigation of potential impacts and monitoring of various
features and parameters is proposed, and is to be regulated through
the conditions of approval and the ARA Site Plans and Site Plan
Notes (Exhibit 5), as amended by Exhibits 51 and 52.
SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES
[18] The Board during the course of this almost four week
hearing heard from 15 witnesses who were qualified by the Board in
their respective fields of knowledge, as set out in Appendix A. The
Board also heard from eight participants who spoke against the
project. The list of participants who testified is set out in Appendix
C. The Board also received additional written participants statements
as set out at Exhibit 8. The issues agreed to by the parties are set out
in the Procedural Order filed with the Board on June 19, 2011.
[19] The Board will provide a summary of the salient concerns or
positions put forward by the participants and the parties to provide a
more human face to the technical list of issues found in the Procedural
Order.
[20] Those participants and parties that opposed the gravel pit
applications suggested that:
1. The gravel pit land use at this location is not consistent or
compatible with the objectives of the Huron County or the
Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanoshs Official Plans.
2. The proposal is not consistent with the applicable sections
of the 2005 PPS and in particular those sections dealing with
204
71 O.M.B.R.
ground water and the Natural Heritage Features found on

and adjacent to the site and their ecological functions.
3. The proposed gravel pit will adversely impact the quantity
and quality of the water supply to some properties in what is
known as the Fernhurst Glen Cottages to the west of the
proposed quarry site.
4. The removal of the Woodland on the site will impact the
habitat of endangered species (e.g. the Butternut tree).
5. The proposal will result in negative noise impact to those
residing at Fernhurst Glen Cottages.
6. The noise from gravel trucks using the haul route was unacceptable.
7. There are suitable unconstrained gravel deposits in the
immediate area according to the Huron County Aggregate
Strategy and this site is not needed.
8. The proposed gravel pit does not represent sustainable or
compatible development within the Maitland River Valley
watershed and will negatively impact this area.
9. Concerns that the Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration
Plans may be avoided or delayed by the Proponent and
further that the science associated with the Woodlot
Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans is not well understood
and will result in negative impacts to the significant
woodland and its ecological features and functions.
10. The impact of the proposed gravel pit on surface and ground
water features are not well understood.
11. There is a potential for spills from gasoline or lubricants and
the storage of recycled asphalt to contaminate the groundwater that has not been property addressed.
12. The Natural Environment level one and level two reports
and the environmental impact statement required by the
municipality were not appropriately undertaken.
13. The proposed gravel pit use is not in the public interest and
is not compatible with the surrounding uses.
[21] The Proponent takes the position that all of the applicable
requirements of the 2005 PPS, the County of Huron Official Plan,
the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Official Plan and the
ARA have been met by the revised ARA Site Plans and Site Plan
205
Notes, and that the Township Official Plan Amendment and Zoning
By-law Amendment as well as the ARA licence and Site Plans and
Site Plan Notes as amended by Jennison during the course of this
hearing should be approved.
[22] The Board in the first instance wishes to thank all of those
individuals who participated in this long and complicated hearing.
Their patience and testimony is appreciated by the Board.
ONUS AND THE STATUTORY AND POLICY TESTS
[23] As is the case with any appeal, the evidence presented to the
Board must be viewed through the lens of the relevant statutory and
planning policy tests in place which govern this site and the
proposed use. The evidence and documents filed with this appeal
(Appendix B) are voluminous and too extensive to be completely
reflected in this Decision.
[24] The essential decision for the Board is to determine if the
Proponent has fulfilled its obligations in complying with the
statutory and policy tests set out in provincial policy, provincial
legislation, and its regulations, as well as the governing local
planning documents. While the Board has carefully considered all of
the evidence and submissions provided in this appeal, the critical
evidence necessary to determine whether these tests have been met
is the focus of this Decision.
[25] It is clear to the Board that the tests as to whether the applications should be approved or not falls in the first instance to the
policy directions of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement followed
by the policies found in the County of Huron Official Plan, the
Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Official Plan and then
the criteria set out in Sections 2 and 12 of the ARA and its regulations.
[26] It is clear to the Board from the evidence that the local
planning documents (the County and Township Official Plans) are
intended to be complementary and consistent with the policy directions
of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and where they differ the
changes in wording are minor and impose a somewhat different
planning test but are not in conflict with the overall directions of the
2005 PPS. It is also clear from the testimony of the planning
witnesses that the 2005 PPS should be considered the premier
planning document in this case.
206
71 O.M.B.R.
[27] The onus and policy tests are discussed further below in relation to the required approvals and the issues raised by the parties and
the participants.
THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
[28] The Boards findings, for the purpose of clarity, have been
arranged by topics to assist the reader in understanding the Decision
as opposed to the numerical recitals of clause numbers found in the
Issues List, and while all issues may not be mentioned specifically,
they are considered within the context of the topics discussed below.
THE HAUL ROUTE AND TRUCK NOISE
[29] The uncontradicted traffic evidence is that Sharpes Creek
Line, Huron County Road 31, can act as the haul route with no
significant impacts on the level of service (LOS) at the intersections
of Huron Road 31 with the Londesboro Road (County Road 15) to
the north or at its intersection with former Highway 8 to the south.
County Road 31 is currently used as a haul route for several gravel
pit operations as set out at Exhibit 4, Tab 3. Similarly, the uncontradicted
traffic evidence is that the proposed pit entrance has appropriate site
line distances along Huron County Road 31 and posses no traffic
safety issues. The County traffic department express no concerns
with the entrance location nor did they express any concerns with the
reduction in the ARA prescribed setback along the County Road 31
from 30 to 10 metres as proposed by the Proponent. The 30 metre
setback is a prescribed regulation of the ARA and is intended to
ensure that gravel pit operations are appropriately screened from
public view along public road allowances. The Board heard no
compelling testimony as to why this prescribed regulation should be
reduced in this case. Furthermore, it would appear from the aerial
photograph (Exhibit 4, Tab 4) that the Falleen Holdings, Huron
Concrete pit, to the immediate north has a 30 metre setback.
[30] The Board will direct that the Site Plans be amended to show
the prescribed 30 meter setback along County Road 31 to the limit
of extraction, and that the Zoning By-law Amendment also be
amended to require a 30 metre setback from County Road 31 to the
limit of extraction and not the 10 metre setback being proposed.
[31] Some of the residents expressed concern about truck noise
along County Road 31 and the use of Jake brakes. By all accounts
Jake Brakes are a safety device whose use must reside with the
207
individual truck driver depending on individual road conditions and

circumstances. The Board finds that the use of such safety systems
would apply to any trucks using the County Road and is not an
impact exclusive to the Jennison proposal. The Board heard no
compelling testimony that the Jennison proposal would alter the
existing noise conditions on County Road 31, and accordingly will
not impose any Site Plan condition to limit the use of Jake Brakes by
trucks using the proposed Jennison gravel pit. This is a traffic safety
matter best left to individual drivers.
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE AND THE PROPOSED GRAVEL PIT OPERATIONS
[32] The uncontradicted evidence of Mr. Gastmeier resulting
from his Environmental Noise studies was that the Jennison pit
could be operated in compliance with Ministry of the Environment
(MOE) noise criteria as set out Ministry Guidelines NPC-205 and
NPC-232. His determination was conditional on the pit operation
following the conditions set out in the operational Site Plan Notes at
Section 1.2.27 Technical Recommendations, being notes 1.2.27 i)
through to iv). He confirmed that these Site Plan Notes were consistent
with the mitigation measures he proposed in his Environmental
Noise Feasibility Report dated March 31, 2010. The substance of
these mitigation measures is to ensure that the equipment used meet
the sound emission standards set out in the Site Plan Notes, and that
a 10 meter high U shaped stockpile berm be employed to screen
crusher operations until such time as the crusher could be located on
the pit floor.
[33] Mr. Gastmeier under cross examination freely admitted and
agreed that the word should found in clauses 1.2.27 i).1.2.27 ii)
and 1.2.27 iii) should be replaced with the word shall and that this
would provide a more consistent direction to mitigate noise from the
crushing operation. He confirmed on questioning from the Board
that the crusher would normally be used to create the stockpile
berms and would have to comply with MOE Guideline NPC-115
Sound Levels due to Construction Equipment, and that this work
should be done before any crushed material was taken or sold from
the site. Mr. Parkin in his testimony concurred with the recommendations of Mr. Gastmeier and further recommended that for
consistency purposes that site plan note 1.2.11 also be amended such
that the last sentence beginning with the words if crushing operations
be deleted.
208
71 O.M.B.R.
[34] The Board would note that with respect to the issue of noise,
silence is not the test. Instead, acceptable noise guidelines have been
developed by the MOE. The Board accepts the uncontradicted
testimony of Mr. Gastmeier that this pit can be operated within MOE
guideless for noise, and further finds that for the purpose of clarity
Site Plan Notes 1.2.27 i), 1.2.27 ii), and 1.2.27 iii) should be
amended to replace the word should with the word shall and
further that the following sentence be added to clause 1.2.27 ii):
No crushed material shall be removed from the site until the stock pile berms
have been constructed or the crushing equipment is situated a minimum of 8
metres below the western limit grade.
[35] The Board also accepts the technical amendment put forward
by Mr. Parkin, as set out at Exhibit 23, namely that the last sentence
of Site Plan Note 1.2.11 beginning with the words if crushing
operations be deleted.
[36] In conclusion, the Board finds that the issues associated with
noise generated by the gravel pit have been appropriately addressed
subject to the above noted changes and will result in no adverse
impacts to the surrounding environment and the Fernhurst Glen
Cottages and on this basis would be consistent with both the provincial
and local planning policy directions.
HYDROGEOLOGY
[37] The Hydrogeologists are generally in agreement that work
undertaken by the Proponent was well done and that the issues with
respect to groundwater are well understood for the site. They agree
that the upper level groundwater generally flows from east to west
and exits at seeps and springs along the scarp of the Maitland River
at the elevation of the observed clay till seam found underneath the
gravel deposit. They further agree that the deep bedrock aquifer
would not be impacted by the proposed gravel pit. The consensus of
the expert Hydrogeologists is reflected in the agreed statement of
facts (Exhibit 3, Tab 33, Page 263). The outstanding issue was
whether sufficient information had been provided to ensure that any
remaining water quality issues to the springs and seeps resulting
from potential spills of fuel or lubricants and the storage of recycled
asphalt on the gravel pit has been undertaken to sufficiently mitigate
these potential impacts.
[38] The experts agree that maintaining the pit floor 1.5 metres
above the observed ground water elevations and the monitoring
209
proposed four times a year at the five well locations and at the
identified seeps by the Applicant, as contained in the Site Plan Notes
at notes 1.2.27 Technical Recommendations C Hydrogeology i) and
ii), are appropriate.
[39] The hydrogeology experts for the Proponent noted that the
Proponent was preparing and had a draft Spills Contingency Plans
for both large and small spills, and that the these Spills Contingency
Plans were required as a prescribed regulation by the Ministry of
Natural Resources (MNR). This condition is found in Site Plan Note
1.2.27 Technical Recommendations C Hydrogeology ii). The issue
with respect to fuel storage and equipment refuelling is set out at Site
Plan Note 1.2.13 and is in accordance with prescribed provincial
regulations. The Hydrogeologist for the Conservation Authority
accepts that these measures are satisfactory, but expressed ongoing
concerns about the potential impacts from leaks from operating
equipment in the pit floor. He also expressed concern that recycled
asphalt being stored on the pit floor might leach into the groundwater.
[40] He freely admitted under cross-examination that he was not
aware of any fuel leaks or ground water contamination from recycled
asphalt being recorded in licenced gravel.
[41] Jennisons experts testified that groundwater condition in
this area was classified by the MOE as having a High Intrinsic
Susceptibility Index (ISI) due to the permeability of the soils and the
associated gravel deposit. This ranking would not change as a result
of the gravel extraction. It was their opinion that the possibility of a
petroleum spill was low and that the Spills Contingency Plans
required by the MNR regulations were appropriate mitigation techniques. They noted that Jennison was an experienced operator and
had never experienced a spill at any of its other pit operations.
[42] They also confirm their opinion that there would be no loss
of any groundwater to the seeps and springs west of the gravel pit
property resulting from the gravel pits operations, nor would there
be any change in the temperature of the groundwater coming from
the seeps as a result from the proposed pit operation. These facts are
not in dispute. In fact the Proponents modeling suggests a modest
increase in volume of flow to the seeps could occur due to the bowl
effect of the extracted pit which would contain surface runoff in
closer proximity to the clay till the layer that underlines the gravel
pit area.
210
71 O.M.B.R.
[43] During the reply evidence phase of the hearing the Board
was advised that the hydrogeology experts for the parties had met
and were satisfied that the final issues with respect to water quality
would be resolved through the addition of conditions found at
Exhibit 51, namely that the Site Plan Notes be further amended as
follows:
Additional Fuel Storage Notes -Add the following to note 1.2.13
Fuel tanks on all mobile equipment remain less than 455L.
Parking of all mobile equipment on the pit floor during non operational hours
should be on an impervious containment pad. This pad shall be designed to:
i)
fully contain a 455L spill if covered, or
ii)
fully contain a 455L spill plus a 10-year rainfall event if uncovered.
All other tanks associated with non-mobile equipment should have secondary
containment.
In order to remediate any small volume spill, all mobile equipment should be
equipped with a spills kit containing absorbent material and/or medium.
Operators should be properly trained to contain any spill.
Additional Water Monitoring Requirement -Add the following to note 1.2.27 c)
iii) Groundwater quality monitoring shall include two (2) wells located on the
pit floor at the southern and western boundaries of the properties which include
a screen which straddles the presented water table. These wells should be
sampled and analysed for hydrocarbons at least four times per year.
[44] The Board after considering the evidence is satisfied that the
hydrogeology of the site is well understood and that appropriate
mitigation techniques subject to the changes set out in this decision
are in place to ensure that no negative impacts will occur to the
groundwater and adjacent seeps and springs to the west. Nor did the
Board hear any compelling testimony that the gravel pit in this
location will negatively impact the hydrogeology of the Maitland
River. Nor was there any testimony that the existing adjacent gravel
pits have had any negative impact on the Maitland River Valley.
[45] We do not live in a risk free world. The Board accepts the
uncontradicted testimony that the High Intrinsic Susceptibility
Index (ISI) for the groundwater water directly below the gravel pit
floor would remain unchanged as a result of the gravel pit extraction
and that the mitigation measures required to protect the groundwater
from petroleum spills and equipment spills are appropriate.
However, the Board heard no compelling testimony that the storage
of recycled asphalt on the pit floor had been properly addressed.
211
Accordingly, the Board, out of an abundance of caution bearing in

mind the High Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI) will direct that
Site Plan Note 1.2.11 be amended such that the second sentence
reads as follows:
Recyclable materials but not including asphalt may be brought to the site for
accessory recycling and blending with on site materials.
[46] The Board finds that the ARA application subject to the
changes directed and set out in this decision to be consistent with the
policy directions set out in Section 2.2 of the PPS, and the applicable
sections of the County of Huron and the Township of AshfieldColborne-Wawanosh Official Plans dealing with the protection of
groundwater matters and that the Site Plan Notes, as amended by
Exhibit 51 and further amended by this Board, are satisfactory and
require Spills Contingency Plans to be in place as a condition of
the ARA licence. The Board is satisfied in this case that these
prescribed Spills Contingency Plans are appropriate mitigation
measures to protect the quality of the groundwater found in the area
and are consistent with the Policy directions found in the 2005 PPS
and the County and Township Official Plans and the ARA subject to
the changes directed above.
NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES
[47] The Proponent has undertaken Natural Environment Level 1
and 2 Reports for the proposed Jennison pit as required by the ARA
regulations and in accordance with the Environmental Impact
Statement terms of reference requirements of Township of AshfieldColborne-Wawanosh (Exhibit 1, Tab 1, Page 45). The Proponents
witness, Mr. Deschamps testified that these reports followed
accepted protocols and appropriately identified the natural heritage
features and functions found on the site and on adjacent lands within
120 metres of the application. Dr. Bowles, the ecologist retained by
the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority, opined in no uncertain
terms that the ARA Natural Environment level 1 and 2 studies were
not up to industry standards, that the inventories particularly with
respect to plant species in the FODM5-1 upland maple forest were
incomplete and should not be relied upon. She noted that the inventory
sheets identified only 86 plant species while she in a one day survey
identified 139 plant species in the same upland forest community.
She also opined that the characterization of the forest soils was
incomplete. However, there is no evidence that she shared directly
212
71 O.M.B.R.
her findings with the experts for the Proponent to confirm her findings or to reconcile the variations in their respective inventories and
opinions. Nor does she believe that the ecological land classifications were properly done or understood by the Proponents experts
for the adjacent areas. In this regard, she believes that the former
borrow pit lands have not been properly classified. She believes as
well that the wildlife habitat (seeps), the wildlife corridors, the size
of the Forest Patch 38 and the significances of the Jennison forest
component within Forest Patch 38 have not been properly evaluated
with respect to the negative impacts that would result from the
sequential removal of the portion of this upland maple forest even
with the progressive Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans to reforest
the site being put forward by the Proponent. To put it in her own
words The EIS report is a master piece of misdirection and
misrepresentation and the performance measure found in the
Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan are nothing short of laughable
(I actually did laugh when I read them). Dr. Bowles, in her
testimony, opined that the Jennison forest is much more than the
trees found within it and that, in her opinion, it would be impossible to
replicate the current forest conditions once they have been removed
and this, in her opinion, would be an unacceptable negative impact.
[48] Dr. Bowles in her testimony opined that the Rehabilitation
and Restoration Plans put forward by the Proponent, was not recognized science, was not scientifically feasible but was instead an
experiment without proper goals or objectives and monitoring
controls and that she had no confidence that one would be able to
judge the performance or success of the Rehabilitation and
Restoration Plans within the time frames set out by the Proponent.
Mr. Ursic, an ecologist retained by the Conservation Authority to
comment on the Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans,
while not as demonstrative in his testimony adopts many of the positions
put forward by Dr. Bowles. Mr. Ursic freely admitted under cross
examination that in informing his opinion he had never been on the
site and had undertaken only one drive by site inspection of the property.
[49] It is clear to the Board, after considering the testimony of the
experts in forestry and ecology and reviewing the evidence and
materials filed, that the application and the Natural Environment
reports followed an iterative planning process with the Proponents
experts responding to concerns or issues raised by the various
213
commenting and approval agencies when they were made aware of

them. The Board heard no compelling testimony that the natural
heritage inventories conducted by the Proponent were not fulsome
and complete in order to properly understand the Natural Heritage
Features and their functions that make up this area. The Board has
no way of reconciling the plant inventory discrepancies as the
experts never took the opportunity to discuss or review these
differences in any meaningful professional way. That being said, the
Board accepts the testimony of the Proponents witnesses and the
testimony of the Ministry planner that the Natural Environment
reports are sufficient to understand the Natural Heritage Features
found on the site together with their ecological features and functions.
[50] The Board has carefully reviewed the Natural Environment
reports (Exhibit 1, Tab 2) and concludes that the Natural Heritage
Features on the site and within the adjacent 120 metres to the site
have been identified, and the impacts that might result from the
gravel pit operation have been assessed, as set out in section 2 of the
report (Exhibit 1, Tab 2). The issue the Board must decide is whether
the tests set out in the PPS and the local planning documents can be
met in this case with respect to the natural heritage features found on
and in proximity to the site.
[51] The Board would note that in response to some of the
concern raised by Dr. Bowles and Mr. Ursic, the Proponent proposed
modifications to the Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans.
They are set out at Exhibit 52.
[52] The substances of the proposed changes are as follows:
1. To add to the indicators of success in Tables 1a to 1d, soils indicators.
2. To add a coefficient of conservatism to Tables 1a to 1d for shade intolerant
species.
3. To remove the following non native species from the planting list - St
Johns Wort and Red Pine.
4. The requirement to have a detailed restoration prescription and planting
plans prepared in advance for the approval of the Ministry of Natural
Resources.
5. To include a requirement to monitor edge effects and develop planting
buffers along the western edge of the extraction limit to mitigate these
potential negative effects.
6. A condition to require that all reporting set out in the plans must be completed
by a registered forester or ecologist with experience in ecological
restoration.
214
71 O.M.B.R.
[53] The Board questioned the planner for the MNR as to whether
the changes being proposed to the Woodlot Rehabilitation and
Restoration Plan (Exhibit 52) were acceptable to the Ministry and
consistent with the plans that the Ministry had already endorsed. He
opined that the revised Plans (Exhibit 52) merely clarified and
strengthened the plans but did not fundamentally change the
Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans approved by the Ministry.
[54] The Board will deal with these Natural Heritages Features
within the context of the tests established in the PPS and the local
planning documents where they differ.
ENDANGERED SPECIES-THE BUTTERNUT TREE
[55] The only threatened or endangered species inventoried were
three non retainable Butternut trees located within the extraction
buffer area. Dr. Bowles in her surveys identified two additional
locations where Butternut saplings were found.
[56] By all accounts the three non retainable Butternut trees are
located at the northern end of the property outside of the extraction
area The Butternut tree is protected under the Endangered Species
Act 2007 (ESA) and the policies of Section 2.1.3.a of the 2005 PPS.
[57] An evaluation of these trees undertaken by a qualified
Butternut Health Assessor determined that the three mature trees
were not retainable. The Ministry of Natural Resources planner
confirmed for the Board that, under Ontario Regulation 294/11
pursuant to the ESA, the report of the qualified Butternut Health
Assessor filed with the Ministry was sufficient to permit the removal
of these diseased non retainable trees without the Minister issuing a
permit pursuant to subsection 17(2) (c) of the ESA.
[58] Dr. Bowles testified that on a site visit dated August 11, 2010
she found two Butternut saplings about 60 centimetres in height and
at a second location one sapling of similar character. She provided
her Global Positioning System (GPS) co-ordinates of these findings
only on request, to the MNR on November 1, 2010 (Exhibit 42). The
Board concludes that these healthy Butternut trees are within the
proposed buffer area based upon Dr. Bowles GPS track Map
(Exhibit 7, Tab 4, Page 38) and heard no compelling evidence to the
contrary. Nor did the Board hear any compelling testimony that
these trees would not be protected in accordance with the ESA and
its regulations.
215
[59] The Board does not ascribe to the very narrow interpretation
proffered by Ms Walker-Bolton of the 2005 PPS that no change in
land use can be considered when one is considering the habitat on an
endangered species. The test set out in Section 2.1.3 is:
Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant habitat
of endangered species and threatened species and development is defined as:
Development:
means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of
buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act.
[60] In the case of the Butternuts habitat on this site, no new lot
is being created, nor are any buildings or structures being proposed
for this part of the site. By all accounts the trees are located in the
prescribed buffer area. The mere changing of a land use designation
does not, in the Boards finding, constitute a change in the specific
use found on the lands upon which the habitat of the endangered
Butternut trees currently exist. It will still be a forested area regardless
of the land use designation in the Township Official Plan.
[61] It is the Boards finding that the current use of the land where
Dr. Bowles discovered Butternut saplings would not change with
this proposal. Nor did the Board hear any compelling evidence that
the posed gravel pit would negatively impact the habitat of the
Butternut saplings found by Dr. Bowles.
[62] The protection of this endangered species habitat under the
ESA and Ontario Regulation 294/11 vests with the Minister of
Natural Resources regardless of any local land use designation. It is
the Boards finding in this case that appropriate regard has been
given to the habitat protection of this occurrence of Butternut trees
that is consistent with the directions of Section 2.1.3 a of the PPS
and the ESA and would not offend the policies of the local municipal
Official Plans.
THE 2005 PPS AND SIGNIFICANT NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES
[63] The Board in considering Forest Patch 38 as a significant
Natural Heritage Features must consider Section 2.1.4 of the 2005 PPS
and in this particular case subsections 2.1.4 b, c, d, which states that:
2.1.4 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:
a. significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E,
6E and 7E1;
b. significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield 2;
216
71 O.M.B.R.
c. significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield 2;

d. significant wildlife habitat; and
e. significant areas of natural and scientific interest
unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the
natural features or their ecological functions.
[64] The Board would note that there are no significant wetlands
identified in this area. Furthermore while the Maitland River Valley
ANSI includes this property, it is considered a regionally significant
ANSI and not provincially significant and as such would not qualify
by the PPS definition as a significant area of natural and scientific
interest under section 2.1.4 e of the PPS.
[65] The Board also finds that the assistance provided by the
definition of negative impact found in the 2005 PPS and the Natural
Heritage Reference Manual should be considered in determining the
phrase no negative Impacts as set out in Section 2.1.4.
[66] The 2005 PPS definition of negative impacts states:
Negative impacts: means
a. in regard to policy 2.2, degradation to the quality and quantity of
water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water
features, and their related hydrologic functions, due to single, multiple
or successive development or site alteration activities;
b. in regard to fish habitat, the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction
of fish habitat, except where, in conjunction with the appropriate
authorities, it has been authorized under the Fisheries Act, using the
guiding principle of no net loss of productive capacity; and
c. in regard to other natural heritage features and areas, degradation that
threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological
functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or
successive development or site alteration activities.
(Emphasis added)
[67] The Natural Heritage Reference Manual at Section 13.2

regarding no negative impact states:
13.2 The PPS definition for negative impacts does not state that all impacts
are negative, nor does it preclude the use of mitigation to prevent, modify or
alleviate the impacts to the significant natural heritage feature or area. For
example, demonstration of no negative impacts on significant woodland
through mitigation measures maybe contemplated, provided that factors such
as the successional status and replaceability of the woodland components and
functions within a reasonable time frame (e.g., 20 years) are considered.
217
[68] The Natural Heritage Reference Manual provides a useful

definition when considering the term mitigation and actions one
might take to mitigate negative impacts under the 2005 PPS when it
states:
mitigation: the prevention, modification or alleviation of impacts on the
natural environment, andspecifically in the context of policies 2.1.4 and
2.1.6 and the definitions in the PPSthe prevention of negative impacts.
Mitigation also includes any action intended to enhance beneficial effects.
(Emphasis added)
2.3.3 Mineral Aggregate Resources
As stated earlier, the entire PPS needs to be applied when making land use
decisions. The following approach can help to achieve the desired outcomes of
the PPS: rehabilitation of mineral aggregate operations, implemented under the
Aggregate Resources Act, may be taken into consideration for the demonstration
of no negative impacts (see PPS policies 2.1.4 and 2.1.6) where rehabilitation
of ecological functions is scientifically feasible and is conducted consistent
with policy 2.5.3.1 and other government standards.
[69] The Board determines that the references found in The

Natural Heritage Reference Manual and the definitions set out in the
2005 PPS should be considered to assist in determining the meaning
of the phrase no negative impacts and what constitutes acceptable
mitigation under the 2005 PPS to ensure that the health and integrity
of the natural features and their ecological functions for which an
area is identified are not degraded. In this case Forest Patch 38 and
its ecological features that make it significant.
[70] It is the Boards finding that the proper interpretation to be
given the 2005 PPS definition of negative impacts for Significant
Natural Heritage Features should take into consideration the
directions found in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual with
respect to no negative impacts as they may relate to the significant
woodlands, their associated wildlife habitats, and the other identified
Significant Natural Heritage Features found on the site.
[71] It is the Boards finding that a proper reading of 2005 PPS
Policies 2.1.4.b and c is that mitigation may include replacement of
the woodland components and wildlife habitat, and that such actions
are appropriate tools to alleviate negative impacts resulting from the
interim loss of a portion of significant woodland. These approaches
must be considered within the context of the larger significant woodland area affected, Forest Patch 38 and its surroundings, and be
considered against the long term results and benefits that can result
218
71 O.M.B.R.
from such replanting plans (e.g. improved species diversity, better

connectivity improved long term habitat for endangered species,
improved interior forest etc) and that any residual impacts, if any,
should be evaluated against any immediate loss.
[72] It is also informative to note that the term scientifically
feasible used in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual is not
defined, and is at the heart of the differing opinions presented to the
Board by the ecologists and foresters for the parties in this hearing.
Clearly, Dr. Bowles and Mr. Ursic do not believe that the Woodlot
Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan presented at this hearing is
scientifically feasible while the experts for the Proponent and the
Ministry take a contrary point of view. The Board, after considering
the testimony of these experts and the material filed with respect to
the Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan, would note that the
science of forestry and ecology have come a long way in understanding the working of various forest ecologies but that this
science, as in most scientific endeavours, is constantly evolving with
new methodologies and approaches to forest restoration being
advanced. The Board is satisfied that the Woodlot Rehabilitation and
Restoration Plans being put forward by the Proponent represents the
state of the science and is further designed to incorporate modifications
and design changes as this science evolves. These plans, in the
Boards finding, represent a dynamic approach, and not a static plan
fixed at one point in time, as has occurred in the past. It is the
Boards finding that the Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration
Plans being proposed are an appropriate methodology sanctioned by
a full reading of the PPS and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual
when dealing with dynamic and living environments such as this
forest area and its ecological functions.
SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS SOUTH AND EAST OF THE CANADIAN
SHIELD
[73] Dr. Bowles opined that the proposed 30 meter buffer from
the top of banks was insufficient to protect the Maitland River Valley
from negative edge effects resulting from the progressive removal of
a portion of the Jennison forest. Both the Proponent and the MNR
experts opined that the setback distance is sufficient to protect the
valleylands from negative impacts. The Proponent in reply agreed to
monitor and provide additional plantings to mitigate any observed
219
edge effects. The Board heard no compelling evidence regarding the

nature of the alleged impacts to the valleylands and concludes that
the increased setbacks are appropriate to maintain the ecological
features and functions of the Maitland River Valley. If anything, the
Fernhurst Glen Cottages pose a greater threat to negatively impact to
the Maitland River Valley in this area than the proposed gravel pit.
SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT
[74] In defining Forest Patch 38 as a significant woodland a
number of wildlife habitats were identified by the Proponent. They
are summarized in Natural Environment reports (Exhibit 1, Tab 2,
Table 7). The Board heard no compelling testimony that this list of
features was not fulsome and complete. However, the experts
disagree on the impacts and the efficacy of the mitigations measures
being proposed.
[75] The seeps are considered by the Natural Heritage Reference
Manual to be wildlife habitat that might be impacted according to
Dr. Bowles. It is the Boards determination resulting from the hydrogeological testimony discussed elsewhere in this decision that there
will be no negative hydrogeological impacts that cannot be mitigated
with respect to quality and quantity of flows to the seeps. It is also
clear to the Board from the photographs found at Exhibit 18 that the
seeps and springs as a water source for wildlife have been seriously
degraded by the water collection activities of the Fernhurst Glen
Cottages.
[76] The Board is satisfied that no negative impacts to this
wildlife feature beyond what exists today will result from the proposed
gravel pit.
[77] It is agreed by all parties that the Maitland River Valley and
Forest Patch 38 provided a generally north south wildlife corridor.
Those opposed to the application do not believe that the 30 meter
buffer beyond the top of bank is sufficient to maintain this feature.
The Board heard no compelling testimony that this wildlife corridor
would be bifurcated to be impeded or prohibit the north south
movement of wildlife. This corridor would continue to exist from 30
meters beyond the top of banks down to the river itself. The Board
is satisfied that this wildlife habitat feature and its ecological
function would not be negatively impacted by the proposed gravel pit.
220
71 O.M.B.R.
SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS SOUTH AND EAST OF THE CANADIAN SHIELD

[78] By all accounts Forest Patch 38, as identified by the Maitland
Valley Conservation Authority (Exhibit 37), is considered to be significant woodland. This forest patch is some 65.3 hectares in size
with some 19.3 hectares being located on Jennison property. If the
gravel pit application was to go forward, about 14.9 hectares of the
Jennison component of this woodland would be sequentially
removed and replaced in accordance with the phasing plans and the
summary of areas of forest to be removed by phase set out at Exhibit
23. The Proponent as part of a mitigation strategy proposes a
sequential reforestation, rehabilitation and restoration program
which would totally replant the area of extraction, as well as an area
of some 1.8 hectares to the immediate south of the proposed licenced
area with a mixture of hardwood trees in accordance with the
Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration and planting plans set out in
the revised Site Plan Notes (Exhibit 52). The replanting of the
enhancement area is to commence before the extraction of Phase 1,
and with progressive reforestation and rehabilitation occurring in
Phase 1 as the extraction operation moves northward. No extraction
of the Phase 2A area can commence until it has been demonstrated
to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Natural Resources that the
Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan is progressing as
advertised. The same test applies to the subsequent phases of gravel
extraction. The end result after the completion of the gravel pit and the
final reforestation and rehabilitation according to the Proponents
forester would be an increase in the total forest cover of Forest Patch
38 of some 10.3 percent which he proffers would be an enhancement
to the size and forest cover of this contiguous forest patch.
[79] Those opposed to the application contend that the science of
the proposed reforestation is not well understood and that it has not
been demonstrated that the existing deciduous forest can be
replicated or replaced as proposed by the Proponent. The forester
and environmental planner for the Proponent freely admitted that the
replacement forest would not be exactly the same as the forest on the
property today. However, they maintained throughout their testimony
that the end result would be an improved forest area, that the forest
cover of Forest Patch 38 would be increased with a better mix of
trees that would improve wildlife habitat, their corridors and the
relationship of this forest area with the Maitland Valley area.
221
[80] The planner for the Ministry of Natural Resources testifying

under summons opined that that Ministry was satisfied that the
Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans were appropriate and
would meet the tests on no negative impacts set out in the PPS. He
noted that Ministry approval would be required for each phase of the
gravel pit extraction and was based upon the success of the progressive
Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan. Failure to meet the
prescribed success parameters would stop further gravel extraction.
He confirmed that the monitoring and reporting was the responsibility
of the Proponent and would have to be undertaken by a qualified
forester or ecologist and that the Ministry had the resources and the
expertise to properly evaluate these reports and monitor the gravel
pit operations. Dr. Bowles and Mr. Ursic contend that the Ministry
has neither the resources, the manpower nor the expertise to monitor
and evaluate the required reports set out in the Site Plan Notes. Mr.
Ursic, in support of his position, referred to a 2007 report of the
Environment Commissioner. There is no evidence before the Board
that the various Ministries have not been fully engaged in the review
process or that they would not be engaged in subsequent monitoring
of the Site Plans, Site Plan Notes, and the evaluation as to whether
further phases of the licence should be approved. Mr. Stone, the
Ministry planner, testified that in this area of the Province the
Ministry has the staff and resources to monitor this gravel pit
operation in accordance with the Ministrys legislated mandate.
[81] The ongoing funding levels of Provincial Ministries is not a
matter within the jurisdiction of this Board, and is best left to the
Environment Commissioner, the responsible Minister, and the Government
of the day. This is not, in the Board findings, a determinative matter
in this case.
[82] Counsel for the Municipality and the Conservation Authority
submit that the Board should not defer further approval to the
Ministry but instead should follow the maxim delegatus non potest
delegare set out by Vice Chair Campbell in James Dick
Construction Ltd v. Caledon (Town) (2010), 66 O.M.B.R. 263 where
she reiterates the findings in Ron Forbes Ent. Ltd. v. Bruce (County),
[2006] O.M.B.D. No.1328, 55 O.M.B.R. 227 which states:
The Board makes a manifest error of law or fact if it approves planning
instruments but in effect put off the burdensome task of properly considering
issues of compatibility and impact to some further date.
222
71 O.M.B.R.
[83] Clearly in that case, Vice Chair Campbell was not satisfied
that the Proponent had met their obligations under the policy
regimes in place and was not prepared to defer the consideration of
issues of compatibility and impacts to some further date through an
Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) beyond the Boards jurisdiction
and control in the first instance. In other words, the Proponent in the
Boards judgement in James Dick Construction Ltd v. Caledon
(Town), 66 O.M.B.R. 263 had not met their onus to justify the
change in land use and as such the Board should not defer these
basic policy tests to a later date and different jurisdiction.
[84] In this case, the Board is satisfied for the reasons set out
in this decision that the impacts associated with the gravel pit
application have been properly addressed within the context of
provincial and local planning policy regimes.
[85] It is not uncommon with planning approval documents that
there be a conditional approval of the land use change or project
subject to entering into contractual agreements (e.g. draft plans of
subdivision agreements, site plan agreements, agreements subject to
provisional consents and development permits). In the case of the
ARA licence conditions this is no different and runs parallel to the
long term responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources and
other agencies to ensure that the conditions of the ARA licence and
their specific regulations that sanctioned the land use in the first
place are being followed. Sequential further approval based upon
performance as opposed to a blanket approval in the Boards finding is
a prudent and a sound planning tool once the appropriateness of the land
use change has been determined. This is particularly important when
one is dealing with a living, dynamic and changing Natural Heritage
Feature such as a woodland over an extended period of time.
[86] Prudence in such circumstances would demand that the
success of the Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans be
monitored over time as opposed to a blanket approval.
[87] Those opposed to the proposal opine that the loss of any part
the FODM5-1 upland maple forest as proposed with its interior
forest habitat for area sensitive birds, for any period of time, cannot
be mitigated in accordance with the directions and tests set out in the
PPS. It was their opinion that the status quo was the only way this
ecological feature and its functions in this significant woodland
could be maintained.
223
[88] The more compelling evidence presented to the Board is that

the Lower Maitland Watershed (LMW) area has about 2700 hectares
of interior forest with an average interior polygon size of 6.7
hectares and according to the Ministry, this area:
has some of the highest forest cover in the Maitland Valley Watershed. Upland
maple forest is among the most common forest type in the (LMW) at 24%.The
onsite woodland is large, but young relative to other upland maple stands in the
(LMW) (Exhibit 3, Tab 35).
[89] All of the experts freely admitted that the ecological features
and functions associated with the woodland (interior forest) are
dynamic forces that are constantly changing. All parties agree that in
the past this natural forest was degraded and was managed under a
Woodlot Improvement Agreement between 1972-87 which included
an improvement cut in 1973 and smaller firewood cuts at various
times. This clearly is not a unique old growth forest that has never
been impacted by man.
[90] After considering the Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration
Plan it is the conclusion of the Board that the progressive loss and
replacement of the interior forest, as set out in these plans on this
site, does not constitute a negative impact (Sections 2.14.b. and d. of
the PPS) as contemplated by a full reading of the PPS and the
Natural Heritage Reference Manual definitions and directions. In
this regard, the Board prefers the testimony of the Ministry planner,
Mr. Deschamps, Mr. Robertson and Mr. Parkin, that the Woodlot
Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan will enhance and have beneficial
effects to Forest Patch 38, as contemplated by the Natural Heritage
Reference Manual.
[91] The Board does not adopt the very narrow perspective of the
meaning of no negative impacts proffered by Mr. Ursic and Dr.
Bowles and endorsed by Ms Walker-Bolton as it would apply to
significant woodlands found on the property, as set out in the Section
2.1.4.b of the 2005 PPS. They proffered that none of the woodland
could be removed and that replanting or reforestation was not an
acceptable mitigation measure permitted by the 2005 PPS or the
Townships Official Plan. They opined that the only meaningful
mitigation was the maintenance of the status quo, and that no loss of
any portion of the significant woodlands found on the site for any
period of time should be permitted. It is clear to the Board that reforestation in and of itself is permitted by a full reading of the 2005 PPS
and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual as a mitigation technique.
224
71 O.M.B.R.
[92] There is a wide body of case law and decisions dating back
to (Bele Himmell Investments vs. Mississauga (1983), 13 O.M.B.R.
17) that confirm that policy documents such as the 2005 PPS and
Official Plans should be given a broad and not narrow interpretation.
The Board has some difficulty with the vary narrow interpretation
proffered by Mr. Ursic, Dr. Bowles and Ms Walker-Bolton regarding
the policy regime set out in the 2005 PPS, and the Municipal Official
Plans. The Board prefers the constructions proffered by Mr. Parkin.
Mr. Deschamps, Mr. Stone and Mr. Robertson as being reasonable
and applying the appropriate weight to a full and fair understanding
of the application of these policy documents particularly when one
considers the explanation of no negative impacts found in the 2005
PPS and the explanation of mitigation found in the Natural Heritage
Reference Manual which states that Mitigation also includes any
action intended to enhance beneficial effects. (Emphasis added)
[93] The Natural Heritage Reference Manual also states that
mitigation may include replaceability of the woodland components
and functions within a reasonable time frame (e.g. 20 years) are
considered. It is the Joint Boards finding that the Woodlot
Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan being proposed can be considered
as an appropriate mitigation technique satisfying the requirements of
the 2005 PPS provided that these actions result in beneficial effects
to any habitat or features that might be lost on an interim basis, and
do not, as the PPS states, result in a:
degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or
ecological functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or
successive development or site alteration activities.
[94] It is the Boards finding that mitigative measures including

replacement and enhancement are contemplated by the 2005 PPS
and the Municipal Official Plans, and may be considered when dealing
with the loss of a portion of significant woodland, its interior forest,
its wildlife habitat, and water features, as set out at Section 2 of the
2005 PPS.
[95] Whether the mitigation measure is called reforestation,
restoration or rehabilitation is not important. The 2005 PPS test is
whether the mitigation activity being proposed has the ability to
remove or ameliorate any negative impacts that threatens the health
and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which
225
an area is identified and whether the mitigation measures will result

in enhanced beneficial effects which might result from the loss of a
portion of the significant woodland, Forest Patch 38.
[96] When one is dealing with dynamic and changing conditions it
is critical that short and deliberate steps are taken and that reforestation
and rehabilitation mitigation measures are closely monitored. These
are matters that can only be determined over time and as such the
sequential approval of additional phases is critical to determining
that the goal of no negative impacts is being achieved.
[97] The status quo is but one choice albeit very important that
must be considered in evaluating the meaning of no negative
impacts with respect to these Natural Heritage Features and
Functions and their ecological systems found on the site. This choice
must be evaluated within the context of a full reading of the entire
2005 PPS and its often conflicting policy directions with respect to
Natural Heritage matters and the competing need for aggregate
resources in proximity to their market. Similarly it is clear to the
Board that the Township Official Plan in Section 6.4.5 contemplated
at least the consideration of a gravel pit subject to appropriate
environmental studies and that the Huron County Aggregate Study
was aware of the quality of the resources and that a portion of the
site might be developed with limited constraints.
[98] Section 6.4.5 of the Township Official Plan and the directions
found in the PPS and its supporting documents are not exclusionary
propositions or policies. Instead, they in the Boards findings,
require a careful balancing of competing objectives. All must be
considered as they relate to the good planning and the public interest
within the municipality.
[99] It is the Boards conclusion after a full reading of these
documents and consideration of the experts testimony that the
Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan, as set out by the
Proponent at Exhibit 52, would constitute an acceptable mitigation
approach to ensure that the health and integrity of the natural
heritage features found in Forest Patch 38 and in the Maitland River
Valley and that these features would not be negatively impacted by
the gravel extraction use in the manner being proposed.
[100] The Board would note that this Woodlot Rehabilitation and
Restoration Plan requires annual, then three and five year evaluations
226
71 O.M.B.R.
of the success of the reforestation and the demonstration of success

is a precondition to moving to the next phase of extraction. The
Board further notes that the first phase on this licence deals with a
2.0 hectare field and does not in any way impact the existing upland
forest. The upland forest is proposed to be properly managed and
only removed in phases after the success of the Woodlot
Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans have been demonstrated to
meet the indicators of success set out in the plan to the satisfaction
of the Ministry of Natural Resources. In the Boards findings due to
the dynamic nature of these natural heritage features this is a prudent
planning tool consistent with the policy directions of the PPS and the
Natural Heritage Reference Manual.
[101] The Board accepts the testimony of the Ministry planner
that the Ministry has the resources and the expertise to monitor and
evaluate the reports filed by the Proponent regarding the success of
the Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans and that the
revised Site Plan Notes clearly set out the targets to be met in determining the success of these Plans. The Site Plan Notes are not as
clear as to the expertise required to undertake these reports.
[102] It is the determination of the Board that the Site Plan Notes
should be amended by the addition of the following:
That the determination of the success of the Reforestation and Rehabilitation
Plans shall be undertaken at the expense of the Proponent by a qualified
Forester or Ecologist with expertise in ecological restoration approved by the
Ministry of Natural Resources and in accordance with the determinants of
success as set out in the Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan dated
November 2011 (Exhibit 52).
[103] It is the Boards determination that with the changes noted

in this decision the Natural Heritage Features found on the site and
on the adjacent areas have been properly addressed and that the
phased approval of the gravel pit licence is consistent with the
applicable policy directions of the PPS, the local Official Plans and
the considerations required by the ARA.
THE COUNTY OF HURON OFFICIAL PLAN
[104] This document provides for a high level policy framework
for the consideration of aggregates and recognizes their importance
and establishes directions that this resource must be protected. The
Official Plan also provides a high level policy framework for the
227
consideration and protection of the natural environment and strategies

to promote the protection of aggregates and ensure that they are
developed in a compatible manner with other land uses. The Board
finds the directions found in the County Official Plan to be consistent
with the policy directions and tests set out in the Provincial Policy
Statement, that one must find the appropriate balance to the extraction
of the aggregate resources while at the same time protecting and
minimizing negative impact to significant natural heritage features.
[105] All parties agree that no amendment is required to the County
of Huron Official Plan in this case.
[106] Ms Walker-Bolton, in her testimony, opined that the
application was not consistent with the County Official Plan. Ms
Walker-Bolton cannot have both ways, either a County Official Plan
Amendment is required and the Proponent should have been told
that at the time his application was reviewed for completeness, or
there are no conformity issues.
[107] The Board after reviewing the County Official Plan is satisfied
that this is a broad and high level policy document that leaves
detailed land use determination to the local Official Plans.
[108] The Board is satisfied that no amendment is required to the
County of Huron Official Plan to sanction the Jennison ARA application.
THE TOWNSHIP OF ASHFIELD-COLBORNE-WAWANOSH OFFICIAL PLAN
[109] The Township Official Plan designates the agricultural field
on the property as Agricultural and the forest area of the site as
Natural Environment. It is clear to the Board that section 5.4.1 of
the Townships Official Plan requires that Mineral aggregate
operations must be designated Extractive Resources in this Official
Plan and must be zoned to an Extractive Resources Zone before
licencing and extraction can occur. The Board would also note that
the Townships Official Plan also discussed the issue of incompatible
uses and the term compatibility with respect to aggregate extraction
as follows:
5.4.5. Incompatible Uses
Potential aggregate resource areas will be protected by directing incompatible
uses away from the resource. Agriculture and natural environment are
compatible uses which may locate on or near aggregate resources, not including
buildings or structures.
228
71 O.M.B.R.
5.4.6. Compatibility
All mineral aggregate operations will minimize conflict and maximize
compatibility with adjacent uses. The protection of natural areas and existing
development is a high priority. Mitigation measures may be required such as
increased setbacks, berming, landscaping, road improvements and dust and
noise control. These measures may be implemented by conditions of the
licence or through a development agreement with the municipality under site
plan control.
[110] Clearly the Township Official Plan sees Extraction and

Agricultural and Natural Environment designations as compatible
uses subject to appropriate planning controls.
[111] Ms Walker-Bolton opined that the Huron County
Aggregates Strategy should be used as a planning tool to assist in the
evaluation of this site. This was a home grown desk top study undertaken in 2005 that looked at aggregate resources in the County of
Huron, and the constraints to the use or extraction of such resources.
Ms Walker-Bolton freely admitted that this study has not found its
way into local Official Plans as either policy or land use designations.
However, she did note that section 5.4.3 of the Township Official
Plan refers to the strategy as an aid that will form the basis of an
Aggregates Strategy to identify a priority sequence for aggregate
extraction. The strategy will balance the demand for aggregates with
social and environmental considerations. She also testified that the
strategy identified approximately 3 hectares of the Jennison property
as having unconstrained high quality resources. While the Huron
County Aggregates Strategy is informative it is not directive in how
this matter should be determined, instead the Board must look to the
PPS and the Township Official Plan for policy direction.
[112] Furthermore, under cross examination, Ms Walker-Bolton
could not explain the inconsistency between her No Constraint
Aggregate Resources in the Huron County Map (Exhibit 21, Tab 1)
with four sites presented to her in Exhibits 47 through 50. The Board
must conclude, due to the inconsistencies in this evidence, that little
weight should be given to the Huron County Aggregates Strategy
and instead reliance must be given to the approved Official Plan
policies, and its adopted Schedules.
[113] It is also clear to the Board from the testimony of the planners
that the Townships Official Plan places an equal weight on the
protection of the Natural Environment, which in this case is Forest
Patch 38 and the Maitland River Valley ANSI.
229
[114] However, this protection is not absolute as Section 6.4.5 of

the Township Official Plan states in part that:
While it is the intent of this plan to protect natural areas and prohibit development,
applications for change may arise from time to time. In the evaluation of these
applications, the natural environment will be given priority. No change of use
will be permitted in natural environment areas unless extensive environmental
studies are completed which demonstrate that no negative impact will result on
the natural features or ecological functions of the area.
[115] This is similar to the tests prescribed by section 2.1.4 of the PPS
and goes to the heart of the matter the Board must decide in this case.
[116] The Board for the reason outlined earlier in this decision is
satisfied that the environmental studies required by the Township
Official Plan, and the tests of the 2005 PPS have been met and as
such the policy tests of the Townships Official Plan for an amendment
as proposed have been met as well.
THE ISSUE OF THE NEED FOR AGGREGATE
[117] One of the issues raised by the parties revolved around the
question of need for the gravel pit particularly when two existing
gravel pits exist in the immediate area. The Board would note that the
PPS policy specifically prescribes that need is not to be a determining
factor in the consideration of the approval of an ARA licence.
Section 2.5.2.1 of the 2005 PPS is clear when it states that:
2.5.2.1 As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible
shall be made available as close to markets as possible.
Demonstration of need for mineral aggregate resources, including any type of
supply/demand analysis, shall not be required, notwithstanding the availability,
designation or licencing for extraction of mineral aggregate resources locally
or elsewhere.
[118] The Board is satisfied that there is no need to establish the

quantum of need in this case. The Board also accepts the uncontradicted
evidence of Mr. Jennison and his expert, Mr. Helwig, that this is an
excellent aggregate resource deposit.
THE ISSUE OF COMPATIBILITY
[119] The Board would note that a significant body of case law
has developed with respect to the meaning of the word compatible
which was expressed by A.J.L. Chapman in Motisi v. Bernardi
(1987), 20 O.M.B.R. 129 at Page 136 when he stated that:
In other words, the new development must be compatible with the existing
development. Being compatible with is not the same thing as being the same
as. Being compatible with is not even the same thing as being similar to. Being
230
71 O.M.B.R.
similar to implies having a resemblance to another thing; they are like one
another, but not completely identical. Being compatible with implies nothing
more than being capable of existing together in harmony.
[120] The Board would note that the Township Official Plan at
Section 5.4.5 deems Extractive Use to be compatible with
Agricultural and Natural Environment Uses subject to appropriate
mitigation measures. The Board heard no compelling testimony that
the setbacks proposed, the other mitigation measures for noise,
water quality and quantity protection, together with the Woodlot
Rehabilitation and Restoration Plans found in the ARA site plans
subject to the Boards directions, as set out in the decision, will not
meet the test of compatibility found in the Township Official Plan or
as the term is commonly understood. The adjacent use to the north
is a gravel pit, farm fields exist to the east and the Fernhurst Glen
Cottages to the west are sufficiently removed from the extraction
limit by both elevation and distance (105 metres).
[121] The Fernhurst Glen Cottage residents will not be able to
visually see the gravel pit operation and any noise that might
emanate from the gravel pit operations will be within MOE guidelines.
Nor is there any compelling testimony that there will be any adverse
hydrogeology impacts to the Fernhurst Glen Cottages.
[122] The Board concludes that the mitigation measures proposed
and contained in the Site Plan Notes will result in no adverse impact
from the proposed gravel pit to the Fernhurst Glen Cottages and finds
the proposed gravel pit use to be compatible with the surrounding
land uses.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST
[123] It is the Boards conclusion that after a full reading of the
PPS that this document, as with the local planning policy documents,
requires a balancing of competing public interest objectives. In this
case the use of an aggregate resource in proximity to markets on an
interim basis must be balanced with the protection of the natural
heritage features and functions found in the area for the long term
benefit of this area and society as a whole. This is the essence of the
public interest test for this part of the municipality.
[124] Counsel for the Municipality and the Conservation
Authority submits that the Board should reject the applications on
the basis that the Municipal Council did not approve the Official
231
Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment applications

after holding the required public meeting prescribed by the Planning
Act and that their decision reflects the public interest in this case.
[125] The balancing of public and private interests is a fundamental
requirement of the Planning Act. The determination of and the
balancing of public and private interests originally vests with, and is
the obligation of the Municipal Council and the other approval
authorities and upon appeal, vests with this Board. It does not reside
with private individuals, corporations, or local interest groups. The
determination of public interest with respect to planning matters is
not a popularity contest but must instead be based upon sound
planning principals and approved planning policies at both the
Provincial and local levels.
[126] The Board finds that in considering the new directions of
Section 2 of the Planning Act that Section 2.1 is fundamental when
it states:
Decisions of councils and approval authorities
2.1 When an approval authority or the Municipal Board makes a decision
under this Act that relates to a planning matter, it shall have regard to,
(a) any decision that is made under this Act by a municipal council or by
an approval authority and relates to the same planning matter; and
(b) any supporting information and material that the municipal council or
approval authority considered in making the decision described in
clause (a). 2006, c.23, s. 4.
[127] The Board in having regard to the decisions of the local

Council, and the Provincial Ministries having jurisdiction over
certain aspects of the appeals has carefully considered the varied
positions put forward by these bodies and the testimony of those
who oppose the proposal. The Board in doing so must consider the
decision of the approving authorities but is also obligated to bring its
own determination based upon the evidence presented at this hearing.
At no time, as indicated earlier in this decision, did any party request
that any material submitted at this hearing be referred back to the
Municipal Council or that in doing so the new material might have
altered their decision.
[128] The Board adopts the position put forward by Ontario
Municipal Board Member Stefanko in his decision Keswick v.
Sutherland [Keswick Sutherland School Inc. v. Halton (Regional
Municipality) (2009), 63 O.M.B.R. 227] where he states that:
232
71 O.M.B.R.
This section, in my view, requires the Ontario Municipal Board to consider the
decisions of council and to weigh those decisions against the evidence heard
by the Board. To read this section as creating some type of obligation on the
Board to be bound by and to implement such decisions would be placing far
too narrow [sic] an interpretation on the section. Other provisions of the Act
such as ss.17 (36), 17(50), 34(19) and 34(26) clearly allow for, and contemplate the possibility of parties appealing a decision of a municipal council and
the Board overturning it. Therefore, notwithstanding a level of inherent deference contained in s. 2.1, the Board does, and should, for obvious reasons,
retain its independent decision-making authority. When considering the decisions made by Town Council and Regional Council, it is incumbent upon me
to scrutinize those decisions to the extent possible.
[129] The Board for the reasons set out in this decision finds that
allowing the change in land use, as set out in the proposed Official
Plan Amendment together with the regulations set out in the
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and the conditions being
directed to the ARA licence application, to be in the public interest
and meets the competing public objectives of mining the aggregate
resources in the interim and then sequentially returning this area to
a natural state while ensuring that there is no negative impact to the
natural features or their ecological functions over the long term.
[130] The Board would note that the Proponent indicated in his
Exhibit 2, Tab 2, Page 90, a willingness to dedicate the restored
property to a local authority or conservation-oriented organization to
manage the site for long term protection. The Board sees merit in this
suggestion that would bring this property into the public domain,
and would commend its consideration to the local authorities.
THE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
[131] The proposed Township Official Plan is set out at Exhibit 2,
Tab 7, Page 394. The Board, after reviewing this document, is
satisfied that it represents good planning and provides the necessary
local planning policy framework to regulate the proposed gravel pit use.
THE ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT
[132] The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is set out at
Exhibit 2, Tab 7, Page 402. The Board, after reviewing this
document, will order consistent with the findings in this decision
that the setback from County Road 31 to the limit of extraction shall
be 30 metres and not the 10 metres proposed, and will order that the
Zoning By-law Amendment be approved subject to Section 3 being
further amended to require a 30 meter setback from the limit of
extraction of the gravel pit along County Road 31.
233
[133] The Board finds that with this change the Proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment to be consistent with the 2005 PPS, the
Proposed Official Plan Amendment, and the prescribed regulations
of the ARA.
THE AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT
[134] The licencing of the quarry is the responsibility of the
Minister of Natural Resources and is governed by the requirements
of the ARA.
[135] The purposes of the ARA, as set out in Section 2, and are:
(a) to provide for the management of the aggregate resources of Ontario;
(b) to control and regulate aggregate operations on Crown and private lands;
(c) to require the rehabilitation of land from which aggregate has been excavated;
and
(d) to minimize adverse impact on the environment in respect of aggregate
operations. R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8, s. 2.
[136] The test under Section 2 (d) of the ARA is to minimize

adverse impacts on the environment as opposed to the test of no
negative impacts set out in the PPS. It was Mr. Parkins testimony
that the revised Site Plans and Site Plans Notes are designed to
ensure that the purposes of the ARA are met. In this regard, he relies
on the setbacks established from the top of bank, the protections in
place for the Butternut trees found on the site, as set out in the ESA
and Ontario Regulation 294/11. He also relies on the evidence of Mr.
Deschamps and Mr. Robertson that no significant habitat for wildlife
exists on the extraction lands or the buffer lands associated with the
Jennison proposal and that gravel pit operations will not have any
negative impacts on potential wildlife habitat in the immediate area.
In all other respects, he believes that from a full reading of the
revised applications one must conclude that the proposed gravel pit
can be operated over its life with no negative impacts to the Natural
Heritage features and functions found in the areas.
[137] Section 12 of the ARA, sets out the matters that the Minister
and this Board must have regard for when considering a licence
application made under the Act.
[138] Mr. Parkin provided the opinion that the applications now
before the Board have had proper regard for the matters set out in
Section 12 of the ARA and that a gravel pit licence should be given
subject to the revised Site Plans (Exhibit 5) and revised Site Plan
234
71 O.M.B.R.
Notes (Exhibit 27), as further revised by Exhibit 51 Hydrogeology

notes and Exhibit 52 Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan
dated November 2011.
[139] It is clear to the Board that if the application can meet the
planning policy tests of the 2005 PPS and the local Official Plans
that the tests of the ARA, as set out in Section 12, can be met as well.
The Board for the reasons contained in this decision and subject to the
changes being directed in this decision is satisfied that appropriate
regard has been given to the matters set out in Section 12 of the ARA.
[140] The Board is satisfied that the ARA provides sufficient
sanctions, fines, and enforcement provisions to adequately regulate
the project subject to the approval of the revised Site Plans and Site
Plan Notes directed in this decision.
[141] There is no evidence before the Board that Jennison has
ever failed to meet its Rehabilitation Plan obligations at other gravel
pit sites it owns. No evidence was presented that it has been ever
cited for a failure to meet its obligations under an ARA licence or
that they have ever had a licence suspended or revoked.
[142] It is clear that Subsection 12(1)(j) of the ARA contemplates
that in the consideration of whether a licence should be issued the
history of the Proponent is a consideration. There is nothing before
the Board that would suggest that the proposed licence should be
rejected on the basis of Subsection 12(1)(j) of the ARA.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
[143] The Board can find no significant flaws in Mr. Parkins
Planning Assessment of the Jennison proposal with respect to the policy
directions of the 2005 PPS, the County of Huron, or the Township of
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Official Plans other than those articulated by the Board in this decision. His review was comprehensive,
fair, and compelling and in the Boards findings appropriately
reflects the planning policy directions and respective weights one
should ascribe to a full reading of the planning documents governing
this case.
[144] The Board, for the reasons contained in this decision, makes
the following Partial Orders and directions:
1. THE BOARD respectfully and conditionally directs the
Honourable Minister of Natural Resources to issue to Jennison
Construction Ltd. a Category 3 Class A Pit Above the Water Table
235
licence to extract aggregate from a 22.2 hectare site located in Part

of Lots 16 and 17, Maitland Concession, in the Township of
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh in the manner set out in Site Plans
(Exhibit 5) prepared by MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape
Architecture dated October 07, 2011 subject to the following changes:
That the ARA licence includes the following conditions:
1. That Site Plan Notes 1.2.27 i) and 1.2.27 ii) and 1.2.27 iii) be amended to
replace the word should with the word shall
2. That the following sentence be added to clause 1.2.27 ii)
No crushed material shall be removed from the site until the stock pile
berms have been constructed or the crushing equipment is situated a
minimum of 8 metres below the western limit grade.
3. That the last sentence of Site Plan Note 1.2.11 beginning with the words if
crushing operations be deleted.
4. That the following be added as a condition to the licence:
That the determination of the success of the Rehabilitation and
Restoration Plan shall be undertaken at the expense of the Proponent by
a qualified Forester or Ecologist with expertise in ecological restoration
approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and in accordance with
the determinants of success as set out in the Woodlot Rehabilitation and
Restoration Plan dated November 2011 (Exhibit 52) and further that
Exhibit 52 form part of the Site Plan Notes.
5. That Site Plan Note 1.2.11 be amended to such that the second sentence
reads as follows:
Recyclable materials but not including asphalt may be brought to the site
for accessory recycling and blending with on site materials.
6. That the Site Plan Notes be further amended with the addition of the following
clauses:
Additional Fuel Storage Notes - Add the following to note 1.2.13
Fuel tanks on all mobile equipment remain less than 455L.
Parking of all mobile equipment on the pit floor during non operational
hours should be on an impervious containment pad. This pad shall be
designed to:
i) fully contain a 455L spill if covered, or
ii) fully contain a 455L spill plus a 10-year rainfall event if uncovered.
All other tanks associated with non-mobile equipment should have
secondary containment. In order to remediate any small volume spill, all
mobile equipment should be equipped with a spills kit containing
absorbent material and/or medium.
Operators should be properly trained to contain any spill.
236
71 O.M.B.R.
Additional Water Monitoring Requirement - Add the following to note

1.2.27 C)
iii) Groundwater quality monitoring shall include two (2) wells located on
the pit floor at the southern and western boundaries of the properties
which include a screen which straddles the presented water table. These
wells should be sampled and analyzed for hydrocarbons at least four
times per year
7. That the ARA site plans be amended to show a 30 metre setback from limit
of extraction of the gravel pit along County Road 31.
2. THE BOARD ORDERS that the appeal of Jennison

Construction Ltd. is allowed in part and the Official Plan of the
Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh is amended as set out
in Attachment 1 to this Order and as amended is approved.
3. THE BOARD ORDERS that the appeal against Zoning Bylaw 32-2008 of the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh
is allowed in part, and the Board directs the Municipality to
amend By-law 32-2008 as set out in Attachment 2 to this
Order subject to Section 3 being further amended to require a
30 meter setback from the limit of extraction of the gravel pit
along County Road 31. In all other respects, the Board Orders
the appeal dismissed.
[145] The Board will withhold its final Order and Direction to the
Minister of Natural Resources for 90 days from the date that this
decision issues to receive a final Zoning By-law Amendment in
accordance with this decision and in a form satisfactory to the
Municipality, and further that the licence conditions and changes to
the Site Plans and Site Plan Notes as directed by this decision, be
certified by an individual authorized to prepare and certify site plans
under the Aggregate Resources Act and these revised Site Plan and
Site Plan Notes be forwarded to the Board before the Board issues
its final direction to the Minister.
[146] This is the Partial Order and Direction of the Board.
Order accordingly.
237
APPENDIX A
WITNESS LIST
1. Mr. James D. Parkin was qualified as a Land use Planner with
expertise in the area of aggregate applications. Mr. Parkin is
authorized to prepare and certify site plans under the Aggregate
Resources Act by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Mr Parkin was
retained in 2008 by Jennison to assist and provide leadership in
support of their applications for the gravel pit licence.
2. Mr. Kenneth Chan, P. Eng. was qualified as professional
engineer with specialization traffic (operations control). His firm
was retained in May 2011 to do the traffic impact analysis of the
impact of the proposed gravel pit on major intersections along
County Road 31.
3. Mr. Robert Helwig, a Registered Professional Geoscientist,
was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the fields of
geotechnical investigations and environmental assessments. He was
retained in 1996 and again in 2009 to provide an opinion on the
quantity and quality of the aggregate deposits on the site.
4. Mr. William Gastmeier, P. Eng. was qualified as professional
engineer with specialization in the fields of noise, vibration and
acoustic investigations. He was retained by Jennison in Oct of 2009
to undertake an Environmental Noise Study for the gravel pit, and to
review the ARA operation plans for the gravel pit to determine
compliance with the recommendations of his noise study.
5. Mr. William Bradshaw, P. Eng. was qualified as professional
engineer. He was retained by Jennison to collect well water data at
five well locations on the property.
6. Ms Patty Wong P. Geo, a Registered Professional Geoscientist,
was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the field of geology
and hydrogeology based upon her work experience.
7. Mr. Stephen D. Davies, a Registered Professional Geoscientist,
was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the field of hydrogeology. He was retained in July of 2011 to review the previous
hydrogeological reports prepared as part of the Jennison ARA
application and to assist in matters now before the Board.
8. Mr Vincent J. Deschamps was qualified as an Environmental
Planner with expertise in the area of ecology. He is also certified by
the Ministry of Natural Resources to undertake Ecological Land
238
71 O.M.B.R.
classification systems for Southern Ontario. Mr. Deschamps firms

were retained to undertake Natural Environment Level 1 & 2 Report
for the proposed Jennison pit in accordance with the ESI requirements of Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.
9. Mr. Paul Robertson was qualified as a Forester. Mr. Robertson
is also certified by the Ministry of Natural Resources as a Provincial
Managed Forest Plan Approver, a Provincially Certified Tree
Marker, a Provincially Certified Butternut Tree Assessor, and a
Provincially Certified Seed Collector. Mr. Robertson was retained in
November of 2010 to assist in the Woodlot Rehabilitation and
Restoration Plan.
10. Michael J. Stone, a District Planner with the Ministry of
Natural Resources, Guelph District, was qualified as a Land Use
Planner by education and experience to give evidence on the
Ministrys ARA licencing planning review and approval process.
Mr. Stone testified under summons.
11. Mr. William Jennison, the President of Jennison Construction
Ltd. (Jennison), testified as to the activities of his company.
12. Dr. Brian Luinstra, a Registered Professional Geoscientist,
was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the field of hydrogeology. Dr. Luinstra is under a retainer from the Maitland Valley
Conservation Authority to provide peer reviews comments on the
Hydrogeology reports associated with planning approval applications.
13. Dr. Jane Bowles was qualified as an Ecologist. Dr. Bowles has
a long history of working in the Huron County area. She was
retained in February 2010 by the Maitland Valley Conservation
Authority to provide a peer review and comments on the Natural
Environment reports prepared by the Proponent.
14. Mr. Kenneth Ursic was qualified as an Ecologist to give opinion
evidence in the areas of ecological impact assessments and ecological
restoration plans. Mr. Ursic is also a Provincially Certified Butternut
Tree Assessor, Provincially Certified Ecological Land Classification
systems for Southern Ontario Assessor, and a Provincially Certified
Wetland Evaluation System Assessor for Southern Ontario.
15. Ms. Monica Walker-Bolton was qualified as a Land Use
Planner. Ms Walker-Bolton is a planner employed by the County of
Huron who provides planning services to the Township of AshfieldColborne-Wawanosh.
239
APPENDIX B
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1. Joint Document Book
2. Joint Document Book, Policies
3. Joint Document Book, Correspondence
4. Joint Document Book, reduced visual exhibits
5. Revised Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) Site Plans and Site
Plan Notes, Plans 1 through 5 dated October 7, 2011
6. Applicant/Appellants Witness Statements Document Book
7. Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh and the Maitland
Conservation Authorities Witness Statements Document Book
8. Book of the Participants Statements
9. James D. Parkin, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
10. Kenneth Chan, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
11. The C.V. of Mr. Kenneth Chan
12. Mr. Robert Helwig, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
13. Mr. William Gastmeier, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
14. Wendy Hoernig, Revised Participants Statement
15. William Bradshaw, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
16. Groundwater elevation data for five well locations on the
subject property
17. Location map of seeps identified by Mr. Bradshaw
18. Photographs of the seeps and water collection systems
19. Ms Patty Wong, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
20. Mr. Stephen D. Davies, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
21. Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh and the Maitland
Conservation Authorities Visual Exhibits
22. Summary of the Areas of Extraction and Forest Areas to be
removed
23. ARA Site Plan Addendum, October 24, 2011
24. Membership Application for the Canadian Land Reclamation
Association
25. Mr. Vincent J. Deschamps, Acknowledgement of Experts
Duty Form
240
71 O.M.B.R.
26. Mr. Paul Robertsons Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form

27. Aggregate Resources Act Site Plan Notes Document, Jennison
Construction Gravel Pit Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh
28. Jennison Construction Gravel Pit Township of AshfieldColborne-Wawanosh Rehabilitation, Reforestation Cost projections,
October 25, 2011
29. Michael J. Stone, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
30. The C.V. of Michael J. Stone.
31. Jennison Construction Ltd. Corporate Brochure Listing
Various Gravel Pit Holdings
32. Dr. Brian Luinstra, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
33. Ontario Regulation 242/08 dated July 02, 2008
34. Ontario Regulation 294/11, dated June 28, 2011
35. Dr. Bowles, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
36. Dr. Bowles, map of the loss of Interior Forest Jennison Forest,
September 2011
37. Aerial photograph Forest Patch 38 sub-basin 24
38. Map sub-basin 24 of the lower Maitland Watershed
39. Photographs of the Reforested County of Huron Borrow Pit
40. Extract Appendix G Significant Wildlife Technical Guide
41. Dr. Bowles, Chart of Forest and Shrub Species of
Conservation Concern reported on the Jennison Property.
42. E-Mail chain between Dr. Bowles and Tara Lessard of the
MNR dated November 01, 2010, re. location of Butternut saplings,
Jennison property.
43. Red Line Revisions, Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration
Plan Final Draft October 2011
44. Mr. Kenneth Ursic, Acknowledgement of Experts Duty Form
45. Ms. Monica Walker-Bolton, Acknowledgement of Experts
Duty Form
46. Township Notice of Refusal of the Official Plan Amendment
and the Zoning By-law Amendment dated October 8, 2010.
47. Aerial Photograph, Site, 1 Lot 10, Concession VIII, Ashfield Ward
48. Aerial Photograph, Site 2, Lots 26 & 27, Concession IV,
Wawanosh Ward.
241
49. Aerial Photograph, Site 3 Lot 8, Concession 9, Colborne Ward

50. Aerial Photograph, Site 4, Lots 3 & 4, Concession 5, Colborne Ward.
51. Agreed Site plan note changes re. Spills and Monitoring Notes
1.2.13.and 1.2.27
52. Woodlot Rehabilitation and Restoration Plan, Final Draft
November 2011.
APPENDIX C
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
1. Melody Bezaire
2. Ann Potter
3. Douglas Wagenaar
4. Sharon OSullivan
5. Wendy Hoernig
6. John Hazlitt
7. Mark Verhoef
8. Gina McDonnell
ATTACHMENT 1
BY-LAW NO. of 2010
A BY-LAW OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF ASHFIELD-COLBORNE-WAWANOSH TO
AMEND AN OFFICIAL PLAN.
The Council of the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh, in
accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, RSO 1990,
hereby enacts as follows:
1. Amendment No. 5 to the Official Plan of the Township of AshfieldColborne-Wawanosh is hereby adopted:
2. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give Notice of Adoption of
Amendment No. 5 and to make application to the Council of the
Corporation of the County of Huron for the approval of Amendment No. 5
to the Official Plan of the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.
3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of final
passing thereof.
Read a first time
Read a second time
Read a third time and passed
2010
2010
2010
Ben Van Diepenbeek, Reeve
Mark Becker, Clerk-Treasurer
242
71 O.M.B.R.
AMENDMENT NO. 5
TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
FOR THE
TOWNSHIP OF ASHFIELD-COLBORNE-WAWANOSH
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF
Statement of Components
PART A is the preamble to Amendment No. 5 to the Official
Plan for the Township of AshfieId-Colborne-Wawanosh and does
not constitute part of this amendment. It provides general introductory information on the purpose, location and basis of the
amendment.
PART B consisting of the following text constitutes
Amendment No. 5 to the Official Plan for the Township of AshfieldColborne-Wawanosh.
PART C is the appendix and does not constitute part of this
statement. The appendices contain the background data, planning
considerations and public participation associated with this amendment. Although the attached appendices do not constitute part of the
formal amendment, they do provide explanatory material. In cases
where a more detailed interpretation of the amendment is required,
such an interpretation will be obtained from the appendices.
Part A The Preamble
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this application is to allow the development of an
aggregate operation on 22.2 hectares (54.9 acres) of the 27 hectare
(66.7 acres) parcel of land at 80897 Sharpes Creek Line. The subject
property is described as Lot 16 & 17, Maitland Concession,
Colborne Ward, Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh and is
currently designated Agriculture and Natural Environment in the
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Official Plan. This application
changes the land use designation from Agriculture and Natural
Environment to Extractive Resources.
243
This By-law amends the Township of Ashfield-ColborneWawanosh Official Plan. Key Maps showing the location of the
lands to which this by-law applies are shown on the following pages.
2. LOCATION
This Official Plan amendment affects a property legally described
as Lots 16 & 17, Maitland Concession, Colborne Ward, Township of
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh. The subject property is 27 hectares
(66.7 acres) in size, with 22.2 hectares (54.9 acres) being affected by
this amendment. The location of the affected area is illustrated on the
attached schedules.
3. BASIS
This change is to permit the subject property (Lots 16 & 17,
Maitland Concession, Colborne Ward, Township of AshfieldColborne-Wawanosh) to be developed for extractive resources uses.
Part B
1. INTRODUCTION
All of this part of the document entitled Part B, consisting of the
following text, constitutes Amendment No. 5 to the Official Plan for
the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.
2. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT
The Official Plan for the Township of Ashfield-ColborneWawanosh is hereby amended as follows:
2.1. Schedule B (Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Land Use Plan)
is hereby amended by changing the land use designation on part of the
subject property (Lot 16 & 17, Maitland Concession, Colborne Ward,
Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh) from Agriculture and
Natural Environment to Extractive Resources, as shown on the attached
maps.
2.2. Section 5.4 (Extractive Resources) is hereby amended to add the
following special policy to the subject property (Lot 16 & 17, Maitland
Concession, Colborne, Ward, Township of Ashfield-ColborneWawanosh):
14. The following special policies apply additional requirements related
to the mineral aggregate operation at Lot 16 & 17, Maitland Concession,
Colborne, Ward, Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh:
244
71 O.M.B.R.
1. Notwithstanding any policy of this plan to the contrary, the

licensed pit at Lot 16 & 17, Maitland Concession, Colborne,
Ward, Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh will be
required to be progressively rehabilitated to a woodlot. The
Township will seek conditions under the Aggregate Resources
Act to ensure the licensee is required to monitor rehabilitation
results and demonstrate that woodland areas are being successfully rehabilitated before subsequent stages of woodland removal
are permitted to proceed.
2. The licensee will seek input from the Township of AshfieidColborne-Wawanosh and the Maitland Valley Conservation
Authority in the development of a spills contingency plan. The
Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh will ensure extra care
is employed in the spills contingency plan developed in accordance with the Aggregate Resources Act prescribed conditions.
The Township will require that the spills contingency plan be
developed in consultation with the Township and Maitland Valley
Conservation Authority.
PART C APPENDICES
The appendices do not form part of Amendment No. 5, but are for
information purposes only.
1. Background
The purpose of Official Plan Amendment #5 to the Township of
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Official Plan is to allow the development of an aggregate operation on 22.2 hectares (54.9 acres) of the
27 hectare (66.7 acres) parcel of land at 80897 Sharpes Creek Line.
The subject property is described as Lots 16 & 17, Maitland
Concession, Colborne Ward, Township of Ashfield-ColborneWawanosh and is currently designated Agriculture and Natural
Environment in the Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Official Plan.
This application changes the land use designation from Agriculture
and Natural Environment to Extractive Resources.
This Official Plan Amendment would have the effect of
permitting the subject property (Lots 16 & 17, Maitland Concession,
Colborne Ward, Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh) to be
developed for extractive resources.
245
246
71 O.M.B.R.
ATTACHMENT 2
CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ASHFIELD-COLBORNE-WAWAOSH
BY-LAW -2010
247
WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the

Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh considers it advisable to
amend ZONING BY-LAW 32-2008, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the
Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh ENACTS as follows:
1. This by-law shall apply to part of Lots 16 & 17, Maitland Concession,
Colborne Ward, Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.
2. By-law 32-2008 is hereby amended by changing from NE1, NE5 and AG1-h to
ER1-3 the zone symbol of the lands so designated on the attached Schedule A.
3. Section 10.5, Special Zones, in By-law 32-2008 is hereby amended by
adding the following section:
10.5.3 ER1-3
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 10.4.2 to the contrary, the minimum
limit of extraction from County Road 31 (Sharpes Creek Line) shall be 10
metres and no extraction is permitted within 105 metres of the residences
located west of the property. All other provisions of this by-law shall apply.
4. Key Map 92 of By-law 32-2008 is hereby amended and replaced by the
attached Key Map 92, which is declared to be part of this by-law.
5. This by-law shall come into force pursuant to section 34(21) of the Planning
Act, RSO 1990.
READ A FIRST TIME
READ A SECOND TIME
READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED
Ben Van Diepenbeek, Reeve
Mark Becker, Clerk-Treasurer
SCHEDULE 1 BY-LAW - 2010

Purpose and Effect:
The purpose of this application is to allow the development of an
aggregate operation on 22.2 hectares (54.9 acres) of the 27 hectare
(66.7 acres) parcel of land at 80897 Sharpes Creek Line. The subject
property is described as Lots 16 & 17, Maitland Concession,
Colborne Ward, Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh and is
currently designated Agriculture and Natural Environment in the
Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Official Plan. This application
changes the zoning on part of the subject property from General
Agriculture-Holding (AG1-h), Natural Environment (NE1) and
Natural Environment (NE5) to Extractive Resource Zone- Special
Zones (ER1-3).
248
71 O.M.B.R.
The special zone reduces the extraction setback from County Road 31
(Sharpes Creekline) from 30 metres to 10 metres and provides for a minimum
setback for extraction of 105 metres from the residences to the west.
This By-law amends the Township of Ashfield-ColborneWawanosh Official Plan and Zoning By-law 32-2008. Key Maps
showing the location of the lands to which this by-law applies are
shown on the following pages.
249

Jennison OMB Decision

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Jennison OMB Decision

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

JENNISON V.

Jennison Construction Ltd. has appealed to the Ontario

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

Property Address/Description: Part Lot 16 & 17,

addressed Determination of public interest based on sound planning

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

Keswick Sutherland School Inc. v. Halton (Regional Municipality) (2009), 63

APPEAL under s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13,

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

J.P. ATCHESON MEMBER:

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

borrow pit that it intends to reforest as part of the Rehabilitation and

[15] The proposal involves four phases of extraction. The first

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

ground water and the Natural Heritage Features found on

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

individual truck driver depending on individual road conditions and

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

fully contain a 455L spill if covered, or

fully contain a 455L spill plus a 10-year rainfall event if uncovered.

Accordingly, the Board, out of an abundance of caution bearing in

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

commenting and approval agencies when they were made aware of

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

c. significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield 2;

[67] The Natural Heritage Reference Manual at Section 13.2

[68] The Natural Heritage Reference Manual provides a useful

[69] The Board determines that the references found in The

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

from such replanting plans (e.g. improved species diversity, better

edge effects. The Board heard no compelling evidence regarding the

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS SOUTH AND EAST OF THE CANADIAN SHIELD

[80] The planner for the Ministry of Natural Resources testifying

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

[88] The more compelling evidence presented to the Board is that

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

[94] It is the Boards finding that mitigative measures including

an area is identified and whether the mitigation measures will result

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

of the success of the reforestation and the demonstration of success

[103] It is the Boards determination that with the changes noted

consideration and protection of the natural environment and strategies

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

[110] Clearly the Township Official Plan sees Extraction and

[114] However, this protection is not absolute as Section 6.4.5 of

[118] The Board is satisfied that there is no need to establish the

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment applications

[127] The Board in having regard to the decisions of the local

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

[136] The test under Section 2 (d) of the ARA is to minimize

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

Notes (Exhibit 27), as further revised by Exhibit 51 Hydrogeology

licence to extract aggregate from a 22.2 hectare site located in Part

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

Additional Water Monitoring Requirement - Add the following to note

2. THE BOARD ORDERS that the appeal of Jennison

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REPORTS

classification systems for Southern Ontario. Mr. Deschamps firms